„Adjektiv + <i>dass</i>-Satz“-Konstruktionen als kommunikative Ressourcen der Positionierung

Günthner, Susanne; Bücker, Jörg

doi:10.1515/9783110213638.147

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, by using N hin, N her, a speaker/ writer positions herself with respect to a state of affairs that is part of the discourse universe, creating the expectation that a contrasting attitude will be presented in the subsequent utterance (the juxtaposed main clause) (cf. also Günthner 2009).…”

confidence: 99%

The grammar and pragmatics ofN hin, N her(‘N thither, N hither’) in German

Finkbeiner¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I investigate the German N hin, N her (‘N thither, N hither’) construction. I first provide a close description of its syntactic and semantic properties, arguing that N hin, N her is a grammatical construction. I then show that this construction is not entirely idiosyncratic, as there are specific pragmatic aspects contributing to its meaning and functional potential. These are the deictic adverbs hin and her, restrictions on the choice of nouns, and effects of syntactic disintegration. I argue that a purely semantic analysis of the construction as concessive or concessive conditional is insufficient, as it neglects pragmatic processes of contextual enrichment and implicature. Based on these assumptions, I provide a detailed analysis of the discursive and interactional functions of the construction, showing that it is a prime candidate for construing textual coherence and for subjectification and stance taking. Evidence comes from a corpus of newspaper examples

show abstract

confidence: 99%

The grammar and pragmatics ofN hin, N her(‘N thither, N hither’) in German

Finkbeiner¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the PfP and the adjectival passive have distinct syntactic and semantic properties which may not be explained if the former is an ellipsis of the latter. 32 Note that the PfP is also different from evaluative adjective phrases occurring in root positions, discussed by Günthner (2009). Consider example 46.…”

Section: The Pfp Does Not Have a Reduced Clausal Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…33 In contrast, the PfP does not seem to alternate with performative expressions of other categories, as shown in 47b. Günthner (2009) argues that the adj+dass-clause construction is not a reduced clausal structure. Neither is the PfP, but they are different constructions.…”

Section: The Pfp Does Not Have a Reduced Clausal Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Performative Use of the Past Participle in German

Ørsnes

2020

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In German, past participles not only occur in root position with a directive force, as in Stillgestanden! ‘Stop!’ lit. ‘stood still(ptcp)’, but also as performatives in responses: A: Du sagst also nichts zu Papi. ‘So you won’t tell dad.’ B: Versprochen! ‘I promise!’ lit. ‘promised(ptcp)’. Here B performs the speech act denoted by the verb by saying that it has been performed. The propositional argument of the participle (what is promised) is resolved contextually, and the agent and the recipient arguments are restricted to the speaker and the hearer, respectively. This article presents a syntactic analysis of this rarely studied phenomenon, arguing that the construction with a performative participle is not ellipsis but an IP with a participial head and null pronominal complements. The syntactic analysis is formalized within Lexical-Functional Grammar. A pragmatic analysis is proposed arguing that the performative participle in its core use alternates with Yes! to express agreement with an assertion or compliance with a request, that is, to express consent to the effect that a proposition p may safely be added to the Common Ground. This analysis is cast within the dialogue framework of Farkas & Bruce (2010) and extended to response performative participles in monological uses.*

show abstract

“…Damit rückt die Konstruktion nahe an den Status des kognitiven Pendants zur sprachlichen Praktik. Dies mag zu der irrigen Auffassung verleiten, dass es im Gespräch lediglich um Instantiierung mentaler Repräsentationen und nicht um flexible Anpassung verfügbarer kommunikativer Ressourcen geht, obgleichwie interaktional ausgerichtete Studien immer wieder verdeutlichen -Konstruktionen im tatsächlichen kommunikativen Gebrauch nicht als Abfolge einer instanziierten Realisierung konstruktionaler Schemata zu verstehen sind 2009a;2009b Charakterisierung" (Baudusch 2000: 245) des von den Anführungszeichen Umschlossenen. SchreiberInnen können mittels Anführungszeichen bestimmte kommunikative Bezüge herstellen und so eine besondere Aussageabsicht zum Ausdruck bringen.…”

Section: Schlussfolgerungenunclassified

Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik

Imo¹,

Lanwer²

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die linguistisch motivierte Prosodieforschung weist eine lange Forschungstradition auf. Im breiteren sprachwissenschaftlichen Diskurs wird der Prosodie allerdings nach wie vor eine eher periphere Rolle zumeist als paraverbale Erscheinung zugeschrieben. Die Prosodie wird häufig (explizit oder implizit) als eine Art Zusatz oderder Begriffsetymologie entsprechendals ‚Zugesang' begriffen; also als etwas, das erst im Äußerungsakt zum verbalen Ausdruck hinzutritt, aber nicht Bestandteil der Sprache oder Grammatik selbst ist. Eine solche Position findet sich sehr explizit ausformuliert in den Arbeiten von Bolinger (1983; 1986; 1989), der schreibt: Intonation and syntax make their separate contributions to conversational interaction. There is where they come together, not in a higher or more properly linguistic domain. (Bolinger 1989: 78) Bolinger spricht sich generell dafür aus, prosodische bzw. im Speziellen intonatorische Ausdrucksmittel als nicht-sprachlich zu betrachten. Hintergrund dieser Position ist die Ansicht, dass Form-Funktions-Zusammenhänge im Bereich der Intonation "nonarbitrary" (Bolinger 1989: 1) und symptomhaft seien: [E]ven when it interacts with such highly conventionalized areas as morphology and syntax, intonation manages to do what it does by continuing to be what it is, primarily a symptom of how we feel about what we say, or how we feel when we say. Hinweis: Wir danken den externen GutachterInnen für ihre wertvollen Kommentare zu dem Band.

show abstract

„Adjektiv + dass-Satz“-Konstruktionen als kommunikative Ressourcen der Positionierung

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

The grammar and pragmatics ofN hin, N her(‘N thither, N hither’) in German

The grammar and pragmatics ofN hin, N her(‘N thither, N hither’) in German

On the Performative Use of the Past Participle in German

Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About